Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
When you sell you lose. I would hang in there but JMHO.
Good deal. 145 million traded today, no problem bring it on.
Just look at 2 year chart if you believe this is another minamoo scam, it is not view the 2 year chart please. All for now.
Sad very sad. eom.
After giving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars I believe about $80 billion plus they are now asking for another $8 billion plus, why won't Sheila get Jamie involved here and take it over and sell it to JPM for $1.9 billion on a quick sale like she did to WAMU. I don't understand whey the FDIC does not force Fannie and Freddie into bankrupcy as well. Double standard I assume. WAMU had to go because it gave no under the table monies to the big boys and Fannie and Freddie do give bags of money out to folks. I guess that's why.
Very good Catz. eom.
Yeah right, me too. eom.
So if Ford is already making these engines then they are violating patent laws if same technology as TYTN? What am I missing here unless Ford has their own patent, in which case this all does not matter at all and will never affect share PPS.
Can you say guilty. eom.
Dear Mr.Sheila Bair,
Please take note that the entities known to the United States as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have taken over $154 Billion dollars of our American Taxpayer monies and are still losing over $2 Billion dollars today. I think this has been a poor investment and needs to be addressed immediately in that you should find a legitamate banking firm with substantial assets to acquire these two entities so that they may not become a systemic risk or cause a run on a bank so to speak and may cause a economic collapse due to their inadequacies in running a simple loan business. It is also exaspirating to report that the major CEO and management have paid themselves substantially more than those in other businesses that lose major amounts of money in any given year, and those other businesses never received a dime from the American Taxpayer's either. I think your cronies should look into this misfit operation and quit funding them as they continue to lose money and make big salaries and to be quite blunt, screw the American people of their hard earned money. Can you see if in the JPM lock box there is enough money after raping WAMU to take these two entities over and put them out of their misery so that JPM can be all of our one stop shop for all of our banking needs. I know that when you shut WAMU down they had not received no such funds as this $154 Billion dollars yet they had to be shut down so JPM could reap these benefits and pay you off, perhaps you need some extra cash in your account from another takeover by JPM of Fannie and Freddie, or perhaps you are already making enough from Fannie and Freddie to not need to have them taken over, your financial gain is too great of a risk here. I understand, oh well it was just a nice idea while it lasted. Thanks a bunch Sheila dear and good luck with your 401K baby doll.
Thank you sir I appreciate the answer, as I have just invested into this company and taken the plunge so to speak. GLTA here.
William great synopsis, I'll just say this, that it takes awhile for criminals to get away with such a huge crime and theft and the Honorable Judge has given them time to hide all there crimes.
Perhaps Sheila Bair should sell Fannie and Freddie to JPM for $1.9 billion as well, they are in the hole by $2billion even thought they received $154 billion from you and me. Your tax dollars HARD AT WORK ONCE MORE. Nice I like to waste money too.
Report Criticizes High Pay at Fannie and FreddieBy GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: March 31, 2011
Regulators have approved generous executive compensation at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the taxpayer-backed mortgage finance giants, with little scrutiny or analysis, according to a report published Thursday by the inspector general of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Charles Haldeman, Freddie Mac's chief, made $7.8 million in two years.
Freddie Mac
Federal National Mortgage Association Fannie Mae
Michael Williams at Fannie Mae got $9.3 million.
The companies, whose fates are to be decided by Congress this year, paid a combined $17 million to their chief executives in 2009 and 2010, the two full years when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were wards of the state, the report found. The top six executives at the companies received $35.4 million over the two years. Since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over in September 2008, the companies’ mounting mortgage losses have required a $153 billion infusion from taxpayers. Total losses may reach $363 billion through 2013, according to government estimates.
Charles E. Haldeman Jr., a former head of Putnam Investments, the giant fund management concern, joined Freddie Mac as its chief executive in 2009. He made $7.8 million for 2009 and 2010. Fannie Mae’s chief is Michael J. Williams, who has worked at the company since 1991. He received $9.3 million for the two years. Company officials declined to comment.
With hundreds of billions in government support necessary to keep the companies running, questions are arising about the nature of the pay packages and how performance goals are determined. The pay was approved by the housing finance agency, which is charged with conserving the assets of Fannie and Freddie on behalf of taxpayers.
“F.H.F.A. has a responsibility to Congress and taxpayers to efficiently, consistently, and reliably ensure that the compensation paid to Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s senior executives is reasonable,” ’said Steve A. Linick, the newly appointed inspector general of the agency, in a statement. “This is especially true when you realize that the U.S. Treasury has invested close to $154 billion to stabilize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” and they “are spending tens of millions of dollars for executive compensation.”
The report cited a “lack of standardized evaluation criteria, documentation of management procedures and internal controls” at the oversight agency, missing steps that may have led to overpayments.
For example, the inspector general said that taxpayer support of the companies may have made performance benchmarks easier to meet for executives. In 2009, Fannie Mae issued 47 percent of new mortgage-backed securities, far exceeding its goal of 37.5 percent. But, as the report noted, this hurdle was almost certainly cleared because the Federal Reserve purchased almost all the mortgage securities issued by Fannie and Freddie in 2009.
In response to the report, the housing agency said that it would “institute a more formal and systematic approach” to its review of the performance benchmarks and the assessment of whether they were reached by the companies’ executives. A spokeswoman for the agency said its officials declined to comment.
Lavish executive pay that does not track a company’s performance has led to anger among shareholders in recent years. When the government stepped in to support some of the nation’s biggest financial institutions in 2008, compensation became an issue of concern to taxpayers. Executive pay at institutions receiving support under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, for example, was subject to approval by an overseer, the special master for TARP. Fannie and Freddie were not required to submit to this process because their assistance did not come from TARP.
As the primary regulator and conservator of both companies, the housing agency has broad powers to direct the companies’ activities; it has replaced board members and senior officers, for example. And it can bar the companies from making golden parachute payments to executives. It consulted with the TARP special master on executive pay at Fannie and Freddie after they were rescued by the government.
Nevertheless, the agency delegates pay decisions to the companies’ boards, accepting their recommendations “unless there is an observed reason to do otherwise,” according to the inspector general’s report. The F.H.F.A. receives advice from its own compensation consultant as well as the work of those hired by Fannie and Freddie.
The inspector general’s report noted that the executives at Fannie and Freddie received far more than their counterparts at other federal housing agencies. The top executive at Ginnie Mae, for example, received an annual salary of less than $200,000. The inspector general suggested that the agency review the discrepancy and account for it to taxpayers.
Agency officials say the salaries and deferred compensation awarded to executives at Fannie and Freddie are necessary if they are to attract and keep talent required to run those operations effectively. They say that current pay at Fannie and Freddie is roughly 40 percent less than it was before the bailout and maintain that the compensation plans are based on the companies’ ability to meet financial and performance targets, like providing liquidity and affordability to the mortgage market.
Edward J. DeMarco, acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, testified before Congress on Thursday about proposals to overhaul Fannie and Freddie. “I am concerned that legislation to overhaul the compensation levels and programs in place today with the application of a federal pay system to nonfederal employees carries great risk for the conservatorships and hence the taxpayer,” he said.
Last year, Mr. DeMarco testified that the executive compensation plans at Fannie and Freddie were designed to achieve the goals of the conservatorship and “align executive decision-making with the long-term financial prospects of the enterprises, and minimize costs to the taxpayer.”
Because shares of both Fannie and Freddie have little value, the companies’ executive compensation consists solely of cash paid out in base salary, deferred salary and long-term incentive pay.
But Brian Foley, a compensation consultant in White Plains questioned the characterization of the companies’ incentive pay as long term, given that it is paid entirely within two years. “One hundred percent of the compensation is paid for two-year performance and a fair portion of that is without regard to performance,” he said. “I understand the stock is worthless, but that doesn’t mean you can’t have cash on the table for a long period. If anybody needs to have good long-term performance, isn’t it Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?”
Why does this link in the IBox take you to MBFI bank? Anyone.
If a buyout happens soon then charts mean nothing.
Where do we think this is going the next six months? Anyone know or have a good estimate. Thinking of buying more on Monday at these levels. Thanks in advance for anything I can sink my teeth into here.
I had thought from all the pump postings that this would be climbing by leaps and bounds, going the wrong way are we not?
So is the FDIC suing AIG, BOFA, and Wachovia and Bear Stearns folks too to be fair here? How about a lawsuit watching these bank officials fail after meeting with them time and again and not happening to mention to them their bad ways and to correct them or put in place an oversite manager to assist in their improvement processes. No we wait until we need to have our buddies JPM take them over for a song and now we'll sue them for their lack of management skills and failure to provide proper services to their bank's management. How about paying $1.9 billion for a multi billion 100 plus year old bank that JPM needed to have a presence on the west coast, now they have it. Pay the FDIC enough brown bags and you too can own a WAMU bank. GLTA here this is ridiculous, the pot calling the kettle black, nice touch FDIC.
Does not make sense to do this to a stock that has not even run yet on this great news. No point on this one. Don't get it.
Anyone have the Float amount here? O/S perhaps. Thank you.
Just so this board understands this company is not selling burgers at a drive through window here for instant cash and your gratification. This is a company that is attempting to assist a nation and others with their equipment. These daily swings that do not happen up or down to day traders must bother them that it did not explode in 20 seconds. You folks need to do one thing quit eating at fast food establishments for that instant gratiftication and go to a nice restaurant and actually sit down and order and taste your food and drink some wine. Relax people time is on our side here in the end. Not quick fixes or cash at the drive through window you have every day. Good luck to all here and the people affected in this tragedy.
All the folks telling you to get out of this stock are short term buyers and sellers that is all. They cannot see anyone not even themselves staying in any stock more than five minutes let alone five days. Move on but before you bashers go look at the radiation link and buy some gear from UNDT please then let me know how that works out for you.
All you bashers really think these big boys want to buy high and sell low, you are mistaken folks. They want and need cheap shares NOW so hold onto your shares folks. Long way to go here.
Canada News Radiation as well See Below:
Can someone tell me what negligible radiation is exactly? Also all Japanese leaks of radiation all stated it posed no health risk to the people? How can that be??? Lies.
Ontario reactor leak released 'negligible' radiation: regulator
By Megan O'Toole, Postmedia News March 16, 2011 StoryPhotos ( 1 )
Ontario Power Generation's Pickering Nuclear station, located in Pickering, Ontario, photographed Wednesday afternoon, March 16, 2011.Photograph by: Aaron Lynett, National PostTORONTO — Ontario Power Generation will launch an investigation after a swimming pool's worth of water containing trace amounts of radioactive material leaked into Lake Ontario from a Pickering, Ont., nuclear plant.
As Japan grapples with a dramatically more serious nuclear event, the news Wednesday drew heightened public scrutiny, but Canada's nuclear regulator was quick to reassure residents there are no health risks from the Pickering leak.
"The radiological risk to the environment and people's health is negligible," the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) said in a statement. "The CNSC, along with Environment Canada, continue to monitor the situation."
Ontario Power Generation (OPG), which sells electricity in the province, notified the nuclear regulator about the leak around midnight on Monday. Because a pump seal failed, 73,000 litres of demineralized water containing trace amounts of radiation was released into Lake Ontario earlier that day.
The accident occurred at the Pickering A nuclear generating station, which has two operating Candu reactors. As spent radioactive fuel comes out of the reactor, it sits in an auxiliary bay, where the demineralized, or filtered, water circulates to cool it down.
At some point before Monday's accident, the pump seal failed, and water leaked into a groundwater sump well that, once full, emptied into Lake Ontario.
There is no danger to area wildlife or to human health, OPG spokesman Ted Gruetzner said, noting the maximum increase in radioactive tritium levels was 0.56 becquerels per litre, keeping levels within the normal range of 6-10 becquerels per litre.
The provincial standard for tritium in drinking water is 7,000 becquerels per litre, though the Ontario Drinking Water Advisory Council has recommended a substantial reduction, to 20 becquerels per litre.
"From a regulatory perspective, this is a very low-level event. There is no impact to quality of drinking water," the OPG said in a statement.
The leak was stopped as soon as it was identified, the OPG said, and the faulty pump seal was being replaced Wednesday.
A similar incident occurred in late 2009, with the inadvertent release of more than 200,000 litres of water containing negligible levels of tritium at the Darlington nuclear station in Durham region of Ontario.
"(It is) a rare event and something as an industry we don't want to have happen," Gruetzner said, noting the OPG will conduct a thorough review of the Pickering incident and report its findings to the CNSC.
The Pickering plant — located on the shores of Lake Ontario, about 40 kilometres east of Toronto — consists of two nuclear generating stations, Pickering A and Pickering B. It is one of the world's largest nuclear generating facilities.
Together, Pickering A and B produce enough power to serve a city of 1.5 million people.
The CNSC also issued a statement confirming Wednesday's minor earthquake near Hawkesbury, Ont., had no impact on any of the region's major nuclear facilities.
motoole@nationalpost.com
© Copyright (c) National Post
It's just like anything else in life, you don't need it until you need it. Iodide tablets sold in the tons with no threat at all, you don't need it until you're scared into buying it. Not that I agree with this purchasing process but it is a proven thing in life. Food you don't need it until it's gone, then you need to buy it.
That's fine but anyone can buy 5 million share blocks.
Someone here posted yesterday that Wall Street was buying this lik erazy and would post this information later last night. Did anyone see that post or proof yet?
Believe it or not I was in this stock about 1-1/2 years ago for about six months and sold it at a break even point. Believed in it then, now I am back on Friday, was thinking about getting in during it's .0007 days a bit ago but did not have the funds to jump in right then. Tried in the a.m. at .0005 but it opened at .0007 and I did not see it until later that day. Anyway glad to be in again, this has new highs to achieve and now is their time I believe.
It's one of those sad but true situations. We have friends in southern Japan and in Okinawa and one in Tokyo. Good or bad people don't deserve this kind of mess in their lives. GLTA.
Radioactivity in the water around Tokyo now, maybe you are wrong perhaps now.
I find it really incredible to have all these shares being traded over the last few days a very abnormal acitivy with this company and not have the management make some sort of comment, good, bad or indifferent. Not sure quite what that means, they expected this volume or what?
Sir this disaster will have some radioactivity for awhile so not just during this crises which may last for years don't forget. Not just immediately to satisfy your McDonalds drive through fast food appetite here.
I am not surprised at all here. Time to buy was Thursday before 4 pm time to sell was Friday before 4 pm in and out no worries.
Staying at hotels like this means money to him is no object and he has plenty of it to waste at our cost. This means he could care less if he bills to the moon and it costs a fortune because he wants it that way, does not care but for himself, kinda like Obama.
Yes I understand the date I do know how to tell time. My point being is that in the real world when one bids on something it is best to have only one or two other bidders in the mix. Seems like an uphill battle and late to the party as well. That was my point, not that I cannot tell time, sorry to disappoint you all. GLTA here.
From the BLOAQ Board: I do not see TDGI listed here.
2/25/11: HUGE OFFICIAL LIST OF BIDDERS!!!
http://www.kccllc.net/Docket/SearchResults.asp?T=2511
DOCKET 965, EXHIBIT D:
AIT
Alan Payne / Border Entertainment
Amazon
Angelo Gordon & Co.
Apax Partners
Apollo Management
Bain Capital
Bergstein Group / Miramax consortium / Gerova Financial Group
Best Buy
Catterton Partners
Centerbridge Partners
Cerberus Capital
Coinstar
Redbox
Crestview
CVC
Deluxe Entertainment
Echostar / Dish
Firebrand Partners
Fortress Private Equity
Golden Gate Capital
Gordon Brothers
Gores GroupC
HIG Capital
Highbridge Capital
Bryan Rubin
Hilco
Hudson Capital
KKR
Leonard Green & Partners
Marathon Asset Management
MatlinPatterson Global Advisors
Metro AG
Najafi Companies
NCR
Roberto Mendoza (Atlas Advisors)
Oak Hill
PAR Capital / Wattles
Philip Anschutz / Anschutz Corp.
Platinum Equity
Prentice Capital
Providence Equity
Providence Equity
Research in Motion
Rovi
RSource Capital / Socius Capital
South Korea Telecom
Sun Capital
TPG
Versa Capital
Law Firm Billing Fraud
Do law firms actively pressure attorneys to pad their hours? Does pressure to meet billable-hour requirements give associates incentive to exaggerate time spent on projects? Or does bill padding persist simply because lawyers are penalized for reporting it? And what's the client's role in all of this? These and other provocative questions are raised by the story discussed over at the Wall Street Journal Law Blog in a post by Ashby Jones about a recent incident of alleged billing fraud involving Holland and Knight. From the post (which references a WSJ article by Nathan Koppel):
After Matthew Farmer, a 42-year old junior partner with the firm, suspected that his own hours on a trial for home builder Pinnacle Corp. had been inflated by the partner in charge of billing, 62-year-old Edward Ryan, he blew the whistle on the firm. The firm took no action and denies Mr. Ryan or the firm did anything wrong. "The amount billed by Holland & Knight in the litigation was reasonable and appropriate," says L. Kinder Cannon III, the firm's general counsel. Mr. Ryan declines to comment. Last October, Mr. Farmer took a 7% pay cut to join Cohn Baughman & Martin, a 12-lawyer firm. He says he left because he was upset that Holland & Knight wasn't acting against Mr. Ryan.
The article quotes two experts who offered their explanations behind law firm bill padding: professor Stephen Gillers, who states that "there is a general consensus that billing fraud has increased" as law firms seek to increase profits and attract top lawyers," and professor William Ross, who opines:
Bill-padding is the perfect crime," adds William Ross, a professor at Samford University's Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Ala. It is seldom detected because it is almost impossible for clients to know whether "an attorney really spent three hours doing research instead of five hours," he says.
Others in the blogosphere suggest that the billable hour is to blame for unethical billing practices, because it encourages practices like "rounding up" and padding time. But though I'm no fan of the billable hour (because of its inefficiencies), I can't blame the billable hour for cheating clients; rather, it's the attorneys who abuse the practice who cause the harm. And these types of unscrupulous lawyers would cheat clients under any fee methodology.
In my view, there are two reasons that billing fraud is tolerated. First, attorneys have no incentive to report billing fraud. Matt Farmer got off easy when he criticized his firm for inflating hours -- he apparently left the firm voluntarily (though he took a pay cut to do so). A former colleague of mine wasn't so lucky: In her landmark ethics case that originated over 15 years ago, my former colleague's partners voted her out of the partnership after she complained in good faith about what she perceived as overbilling. She filed a suit for wrongful termination of the partnership agreement and won at the trial level. But the Texas Supreme Court overturned the decision, refusing to create a public policy exception to the at-will nature of a partnership for carrying out one's ethical obligations to report unethical conduct (such as overbilling). The dissent disagreed, with a quote from Huck Finn:
What's the use you learning to do right when it's troublesome to do right and ain't no trouble to do wrong, and the wages is just the same?
But the other issue with billing fraud is that in some instances, and for reasons unbeknownst to me, corporate clients don't seem to care about overcharges. In my colleague's case, the client testified that it believed that the fees charged by the firm were reasonable. And I assume that in the Holland & Knight case, the client had never taken issue with fees and the firm did not want to rock the boat by raising the matter voluntarily. In large bankruptcy cases, neither debtors nor creditors utter a peep about what appear to ordinary observers as exhorbitant legal fees.
Why aren't corporate clients more bothered by claims of bill padding (or are they?)? Are they so satisifed with their attorneys or so enamored of the big-firm brand that they are willing to pay fees that some lawyers have questioned as unreasonable? Is bill padding so prevalent across the board that clients simply can't tell when they've been overcharged?
I find these issues of ethics and billing simply don't always apply themselves to bright line tests. But what's the answer? Eliminate the billable hour? Offer more protection to conscientious lawyers who come forward to complain about padded bills? Moreover, even if we want to pay more attention to making sure practices are ethical, as Professor Bainbridge points out here, it's often difficult to distinguish the unethical from the unsavory. And before we can even address any of these questions, we need to examine the threshhold issue: Are billing practices ever unethical when sophisticated clients, who ought to know better, don't complain?
http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/legal_blog_watch/2006/08/index.html
What is kinda nice about this whole thing is these are all public record for these cases, so the truth is out there. I have looked today for other cases but I found that other attorneys at this firm took on some of the other big ones going on when this was. Not sure about how they handled their smaller clientele.
Another link on how Bankrupcy is big money for Attorneys.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/05/03/who-knew-bankruptcy-paid-so-well/
Link Bankrupcies and Big Lawyer Fees:
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202482620914&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1